Free kick after a fair catch?
 

OK, so I was studying last night and I came across this rule about getting a free kick after a fair catch (or an awarded fair catch). I've read it several times, but I can't ever wrap my mind around what they're trying to say. Can somone explain it to me and/or give me an example of when this has happened to them? Or why any team would want to do that?

I think there was a case where R received a fair catch at the 50 yard line, ran a play (incomplete pass) and there was a fifteen yard penalty (roughing the passer maybe?), so on the next play the captain of A (previously R) requested a free kick since they were now on B's 35 yard line. How does that work?

This is kind of an obscure rule but has become more well known due to recent events (AZ doing it in the playoffs for example).

A team may have a free kick (like a kickoff, I believe with a tee, someone will confirm) after a fair catch or an awarded fair catch. The situation in HS that is very feasible is: punt by K from their own 10 with 8 seconds remaining and K leading by 1 point. The punt is high and short and R1 makes a fair catch at the K 20 with 2 seconds remaining. A (the old R) may elect to take a free kick from the fair catch spot. B would have to be 10 yards back from the spot of the kick.

Two videos I know of this situation:

colorado 67 yard field goal - Google Videos

YouTube - Neil Rackers Free-Kick Field Goal

Extremely rare..and yes, it is legal and "bbcof83" has posted good examples. I wonder how many coaches even know of this ruling.

This discussion actually won me a bottle of Crown Royal between me and 2 others on my crew that insisted you cannot kick a free kick thru the goal posts for points and/or that you can't kick a field goal from a tee. If I'm not mistaken, this is only allowed in NFHS and NFL...not NCAA. And in the NFL, a tee is not allowed to be used.

8-4-1:
A field goal is scored as follows:
a. The field goal attempt shall be a place kick or a drop kick from scrimmage, or from a free kick following a fair catch, or an awarded fair catch.

The weird thing in the NFL is not being able to use a tee after a safety or a fair catch (free kick). It's most certainly not a rule in HS, although a coach wanted to argue this with me when a team chose to "kickoff" following a safety a few years ago.

Also, if there is an accepted penalty, (or other situation warranting a replay of the down) on the play after the FC is awarded, then the free kick may then be used.
Example:
R makes FC on the 50. On A's next play there is roughing the passer against B. Lets say the pass was completed at B's 40. Additional 15 yards tacked on for the roughing and now A has the ball at B's 25. Becasue the penalty was accepted on the play followng a FC or awarded FC, A once again has the option of the free kick for 3 points.(from a tee, with the opponent lined up 10 yards back)....Try explaining that to B's coach!

I think they should eliminate the follow up opportunity. Once the ball is snapped after the FC I think that should end the opportunity for free kick..in my humble opinion

Citation? (I believe you -- I just want to look it up.)

That rule, although rare in application, has been on the books since leather helmets, changing a rule solely because some coaches don't understand it, is a journey that would produce an entirely new game.

6-5-4

This is probably the best free kick field goal simply because of the announcers. Classic!

YouTube - Confusion in the Pressbox

Yes, this to me makes absolutely NO sense. Anyone disagree?

HAHAHA, "are we playing hockey? Or soccer or something like that? What in the world!?!"

Good stuff.

Actually since waaay before any helmets.

NCAA managed to abolish it in 1950 -- but only by abolishing the fair catch entirely, as Canadian football recently had. They restored the fair catch in 1951, minus the kick option.

The reason a tee is allowed for this type of kick in Fed is that Fed had undertaken a process of harmonizing the rules for all forms of free kicks. They diverged a little since then, however, but not on this detail. They also diverged in allowing a punt to be used on the free kicks after a safety and a fair catch; at the apogee of the harmoniz'n process, only a place or drop kick could be used for any free kick, and the only difference between them was that a kickoff was not allowed to score a field goal. (Yes, a free kick from a safety could score a goal.)

Speaking of harmoniz'n, it was only a few years ago that the NFL classified the kickoff as a form of free kick; previously they'd followed the old rule of treating a kickoff separately, even though the rules were mostly redundant. It was the NCAA in the 1930s that consolidated these as part of a process of reducing the number of "rules" in the book. NFL already had its own rules, Fed didn't yet.

Until Canadian football abolished its fair catch, the player who made the free kick had to be the same one who'd made the fair catch, as in rugby. I don't remember whether the free kick was mandatory or they could choose to scrimmage.

"They just ruined they're element of supplies, I mean surprise."

If Caddyshack would've had a football cousin of a movie...that was it.

He's right. Back when the English were inventing football, any player could call for a "fair catch" and immediately take a free kick from the spot of the catch.

I disagree. Of course it makes sense. If there's an accepted penalty against the defense on the first play after the FC, then the play never occurred. So the offense once again has the option.

Of course a play might have occurred.. unless we're talking a dead-ball encroachment.

It really doesn't make sense. Team-B could commit DPI, have a 15 yard-mark off against them, along with the another (for statictical purposes) a first down for Team-A and eight, nine or more seconds ticked off the clock. I'm not putting time back on the clock.. so a play did occur.

Nah... this really doesn't make sense. I'm for a change that eliminates the option to free kick on anything but a dead-ball foul against either teamm

So if A choses to kick and there is a foul and the down is replayed then they must snap instead of kick?

I think I understand the logic of your complaint to where I can explain it a little better than you have so far.

A has the option of free kick or snap. They decide to snap, and during the down, B fouls. The nature of team B's play and their reason for fouling is entirely different from what would've occurred during a free kick down. So for instance, let's say it was DPI as in your example. No DPI could possibly have occurred had it been a free kick down instead of a scrimmage down. The penalty for DPI is meant to remedy a type of unfair play against forward passes. It's inequitable to then allow a free kick to be taken as a way of "repeating the down", when the conditions of the forward pass could not be duplicated.

Looking at it another way, once A first chose the scrimmage, they had no way to anticipate that B would commit a foul either before or during the down, and so they should not be allowed to benefit tactically by effectively deferring their choice of way to put the ball in play.

OTOH, the same could be said if A chose a free kick and then fouled either before or during the down -- that if the down was to be repeated, they should not be allowed to change the method of putting the ball into play to a snap, even if the original reason for the free kick choice was strongly dependent on field position.

Of course it would be right to say that no repetition of a down can ever recreate fully the conditions. Someone could argue that if DPI were called, a forward pass should be required on the next down, but of course that would distort the conditions even more than just allowing another snap. I got into a long argument with Scott Taylor about my "zeroth down" proposal for repeat-the-down penalties following CoP because we disagree over whether that or the current penalty administration comes closest to setting back the conditions to when the foul occurred.

Ah, Scott Taylor. That brings back memories. As Scott passed away about 3 years ago, you won't be having that argument with him again. It was entertaining, though, as was Scott over on alt.sport.officiating (and when it all moved to rec.sport.officiating).

There's a really simple remedy that totally eliminates any, and all, problems with this enforcement; don't commit defensive fouls on a down following a FC.

The current rule gives R a choice of putting the ball in play by snap, or free kick. B makes that choice based, partially, on field position. 99+% of the time B is going to choose putting the ball in play by snap. They run a play, during which they don't do anything wrong and because of some error on the part of the defense, are allowed to REPEAT the down.

Why should they lose the choice they had EARNED by making a Fair Catch? Of course, you might consider this happens, "once in a blue moon" adding a rare level of strategy for those who have taken the time to learn the rules of the game.

As for "harmonizing" the rules. If you want Canadian Football, I'm sure our neighbors to the North would welcome your visit, or if you want NCAA rules there are 2 States and countless colleges that will satisfy your needs. We also have NFL games in cities across the nation at your disposal.

Football rules began at the collegiate level and over the years have modified in one direction to accomodate younger athletes, and the other direction to accomodate adults. Both accomodations make sense for their respective audiences. Coaches should focus on the level they coach, not where they might have played, or watch on TV.

:eek::( Last I'd heard, his diabetes was well managed, things seemed OK. What got him?

Duh, there's an even simpler remedy: Don't play football.

I hope you understand that the harmoniz'n process I described involved consolidating the rules for the different types of free kicks and reducing their idiosyncracies within one code, not between codes.

I don't think I said that... I believe I said they could rekick if there was some sort of dead-ball foul, not if there was a live ball foul during the initial free kick.

But I implied that if you choose to snap... and there is a foul of any kind thereafter.. the free-kick option is null and void. That makes sense to me.

So if they kick and the down is repeated then they cannot chose to snap either?

The big C, from what I heard, late in 2006. "The late Scott Taylor" is credited in the NFHS Redding Guide.

Wow, cancer of what?

That's what I would propose should I felt like submitting an just change.

Really though, just what realistic kind of live ball foul could happen on a free kick attempt for a field goal? I'm just not visualizing any that would result in this unique free kick being repeated. I have my doubts that team-K would even run down the field .

I could easily imagine fouls by R, because they happen frequently on kickoff returns. A free kick is likely to be taken near the edge of the kicker's range, perhaps very optimistically, and the kick might well not even reach the goal line and so result in a runback. A live ball foul by K is less likely but not out of the question, as for instance BBW by a player attempting to bowl under a return wedge.

I don't know. We weren't friends (I never met him), just Usenet acquaintances. I do remember asking him about a long absence and remember him saying "cancer sucks". I could very well be wrong as to the cause.

We sparred quite vigorously and went round and round and I miss that.

You ruined it. The change will never work. A is probably hoping to kick a long field goal. If they foul and are penalized 10 or 15 yards it is likely that their kicker will not have a chance at making it. You can't force them to kick in that situation.

There are many fouls which could happen. Blocks below the waist, illegal substitution or participation, roughing the kicker/holder, free kick out of bounds...

Why not? They're forced to snap in lots of long yardage situations, so what's the difference with forcing them to kick?

That last one would be really bad aim if they're hoping to kick a long field goal, but I suppose it could happen if the kicker, realizing he needs to extend his range, really tries to kill the ball and shanks it badly. More likely to produce that, they've already been penalized once and are no longer trying for goal, and are trying to place the ball near a sideline.

NO way.. every Utube video I've ever seen, the players are not even running down field, no one is blocking.. there all just standing around in amazement at what is happening. Illegal sub/participation.. again highly unlikely. The officials and teams take forever to line up, the officials will not even let the play go off without the requisite number of players out on the field. Excessive time wasted just getting everyone into position.

Free kick OOB.. Team-R's coach would never let team-K re-kick.. Why would they... Team-R now gets to keep the ball at one of two places.
I've anticipated every option I can think off before I said what I said in the post and nothing lights the bulb that says team-R would commit a foul on this play.. It would have to be one very stupid foul by Team-K on a successful kick that would result in an accepted foul and a re-kick. I can hear the sideline coaches now.. (NO Fouls!, don't hit anyone! etc(

It wouldn't bother me a bit if this free kick after a fair catch option was removed from the books. IMHO it should be removed.

I was on the chain gang for a HS game Friday, and we had a free kick near the end of the first half. 54 yards, plenty of distance, but just wide right (played on college uprights, probably good on HS). Also had a ton of measurements (including one where the white cap had to pull out the card). I haven't seen that in a long time.

Fed has used that reason -- plays so rare their administration is uncertain -- to abolish some other plays, so this change would just be going with that flow. NCAA & Canadian football each abolished it; of course that was more than a half century ago, and accompanied by the complete abolition of the fair catch in both, with its restoration in NCAA the next season -- so it's not exactly a timely trend.

Would you consider an opposite remedy -- some change to make the play less rare, so players and officials would be more familiar with it? Like suppose a goal by free kick counted more than 3 points? Or that they could move the mark and restraining lines up to 10 yards closer to R's goal?

Sorry, what does "pull out the card" mean? Use his scoring card to create a plane to check if the ball has made the LTG?

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed now that I've moved, I won't ever get the chance (however slim) to officiate a free kick after fair catch.

So referee some Rugby Union locally. Signal's arm toward kicking side, forearm bent straight up (elbow rt angle). Some use open hand, others fist.

So if:
A field goal is scored as follows:
a. The field goal attempt shall be a place kick or a drop kick from scrimmage, or from a free kick following a fair catch, or an awarded fair catch.
and if a punt is a legal form of "free kick" wouldn't a punt, after a fair catch, score 3 points if it went through the uprights?

I do think there is a rule where the scoring team is allowed to choose if they want to kick or recieve. Everyone just assumes they want to recieve and we never ask it.

No. It says right there only place kick or drop kick.

The rule is that the scored upon team will designate which team will kick off.

The comma placement is misleading, and I could choose a better preposition and eliminate an article. It parses easier as, "a place kick or drop kick, from scrimmage or as a free kick following a fair catch or awarded fair catch." Because that's what they meant.

Thank You

6-1-2: A punt may not be used for a free kick other than after a safety.

Only a place kick or drop kick may be used for a free kick after a fair catch, so these rules are not in conflict.

I'm confused. A safety occurs when Team A is tackled in its end zone. So team A is the scored upon team. If the scored upon team designates which team kicks off, why would they designate themselves?

B is not the scoring team when A gives up a safety. Rather, the points are "awarded to" B, almost like a penalty. See 8-1.

Since B is not the scoring team, A is not the scored upon team. Instead, the team that gives up the safety by rule must free kick to the other team. The usual options of the scoring team do not apply.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me.

You guys are making this way harder than it is. There is no designating after a safety. Also the free kick after a safety is not a kickoff.

8-3 ART. 9 . . . After a try, the opponent of the scoring team shall designate which team will kick off.

8-4 ART. 2 . . . After a field goal, the opponent of the scoring team shall designate which team will kick off.

Are you sure? Jerry Markbriet makes a reference to the "new" fair catch rule when he made a Big 10 crew in the mid-60s. He missed a call in a game related to the FC.

I know the Nelson book says what you said, but I'm wondering if he's mistaken.

Not Nelson, but a booklet by John Williams, published by NCAA for the 100th anniversary (1976) of the original intercollegiate football rules committee. It had appendices detailing all the changes of the two most frequently amended provisions to that time, that dealing with the fair catch and that dealing with substitution. It was rare that long went by without changes regarding the fair catch, so I'm sure Jerry Markbreit was right about there being a new fair catch rule in the middle 1960s. Many of the changes had to do with the details of signaling for one. Interestingly, not long after the booklet came out, the provisions for fair catches in NCAA stopped being frequently changed.